Chattisgarh High Court
Kriparam Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 June, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2025.06.23
17:11:32
+0530
2025:CGHC:26478
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 1101 of 2016
• Kriparam Sahu (wrongly mentioned in the Order Sheet as Kriparam
Sahu Sahu), S/o Bhikhamram Sahu, aged about 51 Years, R/o Nagar
Panchayat, Ward No. 04, Police Station Magarlod, Magarlod, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
...Applicant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Dhamtari, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate.
For State/Non-applicant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Order on Board
20/06/2025
1.
The present applicant has preferred this criminal revision under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated
25.11.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, C.G.,
in Criminal Appeal No.75/2014, whereby the learned Appellate Court
dismissed the appeal, while affirming the judgment dated 07.10.2014
passed in Criminal Case No.1185/2012 by the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Kurud, District Dhamtari, C.G., convicting the applicant under
Section 36(F)(2) of C.G. Excise Act, 1915 (for short, 'the Act, 1915')
and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month
and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo additional
rigorous imprisonment for ten days.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.10.2012, PW-4 Kirtan
Chandrakar, who was posted at Police Station Magarlod, received a
telephonic information that present applicant, after consuming liquor,
is abusing people and creating a nuisance near the bus stand at
Magarlod. After reaching the spot, he found the applicant in an
intoxicated condition, abusing the public and creating a nuisance.
Thereafter, applicant was taken into custody and an offence under
Section 36(F)(2) of the Act, 1915 was registered against the applicant.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 36(F)(2)
of the Act, 1915 was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Kurud, District Dhamtari. The applicant abjured the charge and
pleaded non-guilty.
4. The Court of JMFC, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, convicted and sentenced the present applicant as
mentioned in Para 1 of this order. The said judgment was challenged
by the applicant in criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court vide
judgment dated 25.11.2016 dismissed the appeal while upholding the
judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not want to
press this revision on conviction part of the applicant, but confines his
argument to the sentence part only, which according to him, is on
higher side. He further submits that the applicant has remained in jail
for 07 days i.e. from 25.11.2016 to 01.12.2016, he has no criminal
antecedents and he is facing the lis since October, 2012, i.e. more
than 12 years. He also submits that the fine amount has already been
deposited by the applicant with the concerned trial Court. Therefore, it
is prayed that the jail sentence awarded to the applicant be reduced to
the period already undergone by him.
6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the revision and
supports the impugned judgment.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. Considering the statements of PW-1 Gendlal, PW-2 Sekhar Soni,
PW-3 Dr. Uday Anand Dhruw and PW-4 Kirtan Chandrakar, Head
Constable and the other evidence and material available on record,
this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial
Court as well as the Appellate Court being based on the evidence
available on record is a correct finding and I hereby affirm the said
finding of conviction of applicant.
9. As regards the sentence part, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, further considering the fact that the applicant has
undergone 07 days, he is facing the lis since October, 2012 i.e. more
than 12 years and there is no criminal antecedents against him, I am
of the view that the ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the
conviction imposed upon the applicant, the jail sentence awarded to
him is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
10. Consequently, the revision is partly allowed. While maintaining
conviction of the applicant under the aforesaid Section, the sentence
imposed thereunder by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is
hereby modified and he is sentenced to the period already undergone
by him. The fine sentence is affirmed.
11. It is reported that the applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are not
discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a
further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge
Akhilesh
